First: Social security is solvent, it will be solvent for years, and to fix it will require a minor tax increase decades from now. Quit believing propaganda.
Solvent in the sense that next month's check won't bounce? Or solvent in the sense that if it were an independent entity entitled to its current revenue streams, and nothing else, you'd happily buy someone's future SS income at 100 cents on the dollar?
Or, wait, solvent in the sense that if I had a balance sheet that looked like theirs, and I made the promises they make, I wouldn't be going to jail?
Solvent in the sense that there's enough money to pay full benefits until the late 2030's or early 2040's without any changes. And solvent in the sense that minor adjustments to benefits or taxes will fix it beyond that.
The accounting profession has created a term for entities that are almost solvent, and can almost pay off their debts. The term is "insolvent."
It's dangerous to have entities for which the clock is running out. What we should aim for is the opposite: a social security system that's gradually accumulating assets, and can eventually use that to offload its risks (by, for example, paying a life insurance company to assume some of its obligations).
That way, 1) we know how much things cost, and 2) our problems are gradually getting solved. Now, we have the opposite situation.
Solvent in the sense that next month's check won't bounce? Or solvent in the sense that if it were an independent entity entitled to its current revenue streams, and nothing else, you'd happily buy someone's future SS income at 100 cents on the dollar?
Or, wait, solvent in the sense that if I had a balance sheet that looked like theirs, and I made the promises they make, I wouldn't be going to jail?